Heavy gunfire reverberated through the streets shortly after dawn and a large plume of smoke rose over the city following the attack on the hostel in the Shar-e-Naw district. Kabul police chief Abdul Rahman Rahman said seven people were killed, including some attackers.

The Soviets more or less withdrew to the cities in the mid-1980s, and it didn’t stop them from being forced ultimately to withdraw from the country. And they even had loyal Communist Party cadres and large numbers of urban women on their side. I doubt there is any similar genuine support group for US and NATO presence in the country, though the Tajiks don’t so far seem to mind it the way elements among the Pashtuns do.

What I still don’t hear is what the objective of the war is, and how it will be accomplished in some reasonable time frame. If the objective is that Pashtun tribesmen shouldn’t feud with each other and with their government, and should become secularized, then this really is a 40-year war.

6 Responses

Michael

Is there someone suggesting that is the objective? The objective wrt Taliban (Pashtun tribesmen being another matter) is plainly under discussion at this time. I imagine it will be to ensure that an Afghan government's nominal claim to control of all Afghan territory is not threatened or challenged in exchange for an understanding that near total tribal autonomy will be respected.

Anonymous

With little to no critical thinking we invaded Afghanistan seeking revenge for 9/11, instead of justice. It took no courage or brilliant thinking to start the war. All it took was a macho cowboy attitude. Now after 8 years what do we do? As one General said, do we get out as stupidly as we got in? Once we are out, then what? We will have solved what? It seems there is an absence of critical thinking all around. Hopefully President Obama's administration is doing just that in the latest review. Whatever they decide let's be crystal clear, staying or leaving are both choices fraught with danger. Neither course is any guarantee of anything. Stay or leave the President will have to use his considerable communications skills to tell us exactly what we hope to accomplish. I'm sorry to say that real world issues are not like an hour long version of CSI where solutions are found just in time for dessert!

Scott Corey

Sounds like the US has decided to take President Karzai's brother out of politics. "Current and former" intelligence officers revealing an important CIA asset? Why, unless they have been given the green lignt to do so? Maybe we are getting serious about improving governance over there. It beats sponsoring a coup the way we did when Vietnam's President Diem was going down a self-destructive path.

charlie

Hoh makes a cogent point, but one that could have been made about Iraq as well.

The recent NYT series on the reporter being held and his realization of his captors belief in the caliphate is a worthwhile read. It also makes some sense to punish them enough that they give up that belief. To go back to the old Keegan quote –"The first world war taught the winners that war isn't worth it. The second world war take the losers the same lesson."

And for the record, I think we should give Afghanistan to Pakistan as a strategic possession and let them deal with oppressing their Pashtun cousins.

Anonymous

Informed people in Afghanistan and abroad already know about who and who in Karzai's government are involved with the CIA and/or drug trade. The question is why now. Why the turn in media against Karzai in recent months, from portraying him as a good ally in the 'War on Terror' to a bad puppet? Is it time to dump him? Has Washington found a replacement already? Zalmay Khalilzad or Abdullah Abdullah? Eric Margolis provides some good insights in this regard: